Forum:Removing article comments
Hello everyone. I know this may not appeal to a lot of people at first, but please hear me out and listen as to why I want article comments feature removed from the wiki. First and foremost, I want to address the effect that article comments have on everyone. When one is browsing through the wiki, these comments are able to be viewed at the bottom of every page related to anything in the game. The content of these comments can range from spam, vandalism, and vulgar language to legitimate questions or concerns that people express. However, most of them tend to live up to their names: just plain old comments. Overall they tend to deviate from the content of the article, sometimes being so different and out of place, one can only wonder why they were even posted there. That is one of the problems that I am seeing with these article comments -- their content pulls away from the content of the article itself, making even the most professional article appear to be nothing special. Second, these comments seem to affect the ability to patrol edits. This concerns more on the administrative side, but the effects can be applied to everyone. "Patrolling" is a tool used by admins to filter through all the edits made to the wiki. Marking an edit as patrolled results in the removal of that edit from the list of edits that have yet to be reviewed. This allows us to go through each edit and easily find/revert vandalism. It also allows us to see which edits have not yet been reviewed, so we can ensure that all edits are covered. However, the article comments seem to be disabling our ability to patrol edits made to the main namespace (everything about Tekkit). Furthermore, the comments mark themselves as able to be patrolled; in reality, nothing can be done to actually patrol these comments. This leaves us admins with just a list of comments that cannot be shortened. So here lies my other problem with article comments -- they remove the ability of admins to effectively review edits. Third and final, I want to address what exactly we will be reverting to if the article comments feature is removed. Instead of comments, we would be using Talk pages, a separate page designated for the discussion of each article. These are not able to be viewed when simply browsing content; the talk page must be opened to view anything on it. I am promoting the usage of these instead because, like the other edits, these have the ability to be patrolled, which means the admins can go through the list and effectively review each one. They are also much easier to maintain, and replies to removed comments can be kept, unlike the current system which deletes all replies if the parent comment is deleted. Like articles, their content can be broken off into sections, allowing discussions of the same type able to be clumped into one space. Overall, talk pages triumph article comments in their much more suitable ability to organize and maintain conversations. I now ask each of you your opinions on this matter. I wish to know what you think and where you stand. All of you. Anyone, registered or not, can post on here because it affects you all. Please tell me whether we should keep the article comments feature or not and explain your reason why. I would like to hear strong reasons as well, as they tell me what you truly believe. I thank you for reading this and, if you do, replying to this. You participation is very much appreciated. --''The Exterminator'' (talk • • ) 17:50, October 7, 2012 (UTC) Possible positions: *'Keep' -- keep article comments *'Remove' -- remove article comments *'Neutral' -- not sure about standing or have not decided yet When formatting your response, please have it reflect the following style: Position: Reason for position. Signature As an example, it should turn out like this: Neutral: I'm really not sure. ExampleUser (wall) 17:50, October 7, 2012 (UTC) You do not have to immediately place your decision; you can also place Comment on the position line to indicate that you are simply making a comment or asking a question. If you are replying to another post, you don't have to put the Comment, however. To reply to one particular comment, you just indent directly below it. To post your signature, either click the signature button or place four tildes (~~~~). Be polite. Assume good faith. Do not insult other people. Discussion Remove: As per my reasons above. --''The Exterminator'' (talk • • ) 17:50, October 7, 2012 (UTC) Keep: While vandalism, spam, and vulgar language are indeed a problem, I believe that the potential to provide assistance to other users via the comments makes this feature almost necessary. In fact I have added information to quite a few pages based on comments asking for said information. -- SirSilica (talk) 18:05, October 7, 2012 (UTC) :Talk pages can actually be used to do the exact same thing. Someone can post a question or request information on the talk page, which we can then use to add in to the article. The system is similar in those regards, but moved to a separate page. --''The Exterminator'' (talk • • ) 18:24, October 7, 2012 (UTC) Keep: 'For the vast majority of users, a Talk page is harder to use and understand. You say "Overall, talk pages triumph article comments in their much more suitable ability to organize and maintain conversations." I completely disagree - what could be simpler for organizing and maintaining conversations than the same concept Facebook uses for commenting on a picture? We recently moved away from User Talk pages, I don't see any reason to revert back to Talk pages for article comments. I think it's a step in the wrong direction. 'Mdouglas3 talk :As I said in that same paragraph you refer to, the current article system will delete any and all posts that are replies to the parent comment. With talk pages, you can keep all the posts and only remove the intended ones, which comes in handy for maintaining the page and keeping history. As far as organizing goes, talk pages can do the exact same thing as the "Facebook concept" -- the only difference is that comments are not separated into boxes. Indeed, the replies can be formatted the same way by indenting (as I am doing now) and replies to those replies can be done can be done with additional indenting. The only real difference in simplicity between article comments and talk pages is one click -- both require you to click a button to edit and both require you to enter text, but only talk pages allow you to choose the exact location you want your post. Also, threads can be categorized by headings for easy skimming and reading, instead of the comments with which you have to scroll through the entire page as you look for one comment out of many that is used as a "heading" with no table of contents to help speed things along. Also I must ask why you why you think talk pages are hard for the majority of users. Have you taken a study on this or have you only said that because that's what you perceive? On talk pages, there is a button at the very top that says "Post Comment"; clicking on it opens a page where you can enter a title, your content, and then click publish to finish. Nothing should be complicated about that. --''The Exterminator'' (talk • • ) 00:28, October 12, 2012 (UTC) :::Comments are quicker and easier for all users. That's my opinion on this matter. Why do I have this opinion? Because I have seen far too many times users who mess up a talk page on accident because they don't know how to edit it properly - they don't sign their comment, they don't create a new section, they put it in the wrong place, they accidentally delete someone else's comment, their comment looks like a continuation of someone else's, etc. Also, there's a serious issue of possible abuse - editing a comment page to change someone else's comment - sure, editing history is maintained and people can rollback and fix things, but not before damage is done, and certainly not without more effort. :::You ask if I've done a study on why I think talk pages are hard for users. You're not asking because you think I may have actually done a study, you're asking in a passive aggressive way to try to discredit my opinion simply based on the fact that it is opinion only, without scientific research. Of course I haven't done a study. I'm using my years of experience with wikis to form an opinion. I could turn the question around to you, have you done a study on your own thesis that "talk pages triumph article comments in their much more suitable ability to organize and maintain conversations". Of course you haven't. That's your opinion. I just happen to disagree with you. This will be my last comment. Mdouglas3 talk :::::The first paragraph was basically my reasoning. I second this keep of the same reason. Plus, I couldn't format my own opinion properly, so I am just putting it here. ~King Crusader Deleters (talk) 22:53, October 15, 2012 (UTC) :::::Mdouglas: that last part came out completely wrong and I meant no offense in any way. I was legitimately interested in why you thought that people have problems have problems with talk pages, because I have never seen anyone have trouble with talk page formatting. In all the wikis I've browsed, I've seen very little people that have complained of talk pages. Those that have opposed have all used the same arguments, which is that most people find talk pages harder to use. I have always been a bit ruffled about that argument because I have not encountered a large amount of people that have trouble with them. I did not mean for that part to portray the way it did and am sorry for that tone. The last thing I want is to be viewed as a jerk, but I understand if that's how you feel. --''The Exterminator'' (talk • • ) 23:14, October 15, 2012 (UTC) Cacher97 (Message • • • ) 07:34, October 11, 2012 (UTC) :Why? Could you please explain and further qualify why you oppose? --''The Exterminator'' (talk • • ) 00:28, October 12, 2012 (UTC)